User:Fvw/TalkArchive/7

Welcome to my talk page. If you want to leave criticism or question my judgement, that's fine, communication is important. If you want to have a chat, point out good or funny articles or leave suggestions or compliments, that's even better. If you want to list this page on VfD, it was funny the first five times, let's give it a rest now, ok? Please add new comment threads at the bottom of the page in a new section (click here). I'll reply on your talk page, copying what was said to keep things clear. Please sign your comments.

Archived talk pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Block

Thank you, Fwv. SlimVirgin 07:04, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Fvw, do you need the blocking information to stay on my Talk page, as I was going to archive it? Let me know if you have a preference. Best, SlimVirgin 08:02, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Open proxies

Frank, I fully agree that open proxies should be blocked—permanently, too. But I am not quite sure that a bot is the right way to go. It seems to me that checking for open proxies can be done completely offline. (In fact, why check at all? Why not just assume that the list at e.g. [1] indeed does list open proxies, and just block all the listed IPs without double-checking?) Then just generate a list of the appropriate SQL statements, and have a developer run them. (I assume that blocks are stored in the DB somewhere.) Seems much simpler to me, especially because running the SQL on-site will produce less load on the servers, consumes no network bandwidth, and avoids the precedent of having a bot with admin privileges (which seems to bother at least one person). Did you talk to the developers, e.g. Tim Starling? Finally: make sure your bot unblocks IPs before blocking them as open proxies to ensure that prior short-term blocks get indeed overridden. Lupo 07:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Importance of Anonymity

To Frank and others: I understand the frustration with vandalism performed via anonymous proxies. While the initial reaction to block all open proxies seems like a good idea I think the ramifications of this decision should be explored.

There is strong historical precedent for supporting anonymous communications, be it whistleblowing or controversial topics to a desire to make a claim or position without influencing perception given personal reputation.

The suggestion to require a user account for anonymous editing was not deemed suitable due to the ease of creating new accounts as the abused ones are terminated. Perhaps there is a middle ground?

Some suggestions that come to mind:

- A user who creates an anonymous account will have all edits directed to a moderation queue. If the edits are deemed productive and useful they can be accepted.

- An anonymous user with a good history of useful edits might be granted direct access to avoid the delays associated with a moderation queue.

Again, I want to impress upon those involved that while anonymity can (and will be) abused there are times when it becomes critical to the discussions at hand. The state of affairs in China and other repressed nations as well as increasingly intrusive legislation here in the United States (PATRIOT act monitoring of web activities without a warrant for example) is a strong reminder of the importance of anonymity for controversial and important topics.

Please try to consider any workable solution that will serve both the interests of Wikipedia and anonymous users.

Thank you,

   Martin Peck

There are a lot of technical solutions possible for the anonymous editing problem, and if you want to code them, it'd be much appreciated. However, until we have those solutions, blocking anonymous proxies is a necessity. Keep in mind however that a single group of users being blocked from wikipedia is losing out on the labour of that group of people, but those edits can always (theoretically) be done by others. First-hand experiences and other information "that's need to be brought out in the open" shouldn't be put on wikipedia and will be removed anyway, wikipedia is not intended for original research and other unverifiable information. --fvw * 13:15, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Regarding the original research / unverifiable information this is probably of little use as you indicate. The corporate employee or expert desiring anonymity is probably more applicable (Unlimited Freedom blog my favorite example). I'll start looking at the Wikipedia sources to see if I might be able to accomplish this. Are there others already involved in this project working on similar / related features? I'll move remaining discussion to a devel list or appropriate forum. Thanks again.

advice on error

Thanks for that, I'm feeling at bit slack at the moment, I've been up all night Richard Harvey 14:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reversion...

...on my home page. Paul Beardsell 20:05, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox

Are you blind!? Its there-check my last post.

Arbitration Committee case opening

You have been named as a disputant in the recently opened Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute case brought before the Arbitration Committee. You may wish to add evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute/Evidence to support your case. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 03:33, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)